Obama opponents NEVER satisfied

[jillian]

The author of the stupid original post subscribes to the absurd notion that we "should" treat terrorism in the same way we treat mere criminality.

It was precisely that kind of mindless liberal "thinking" that led to the kinds of problems that made 9/11/2001 possible.

The funny thing is that the people who think that way voted for Obama based on his campaign rhetoric to the same. Sorta different now that he has to actually do the job now huh?

The funny thing is that Israel, which has had far more experience with terrorism than we do, treats arrested terrorist suspects as a criminal matter.

And the really really funny thing is that no one had a problem with trying Richard Reid in a civilian court because george bush was president at the time.

 

[Jroc]

You don't know me. Not a "lib" asshole.

I don't need your worthless permission for anything. You are too fuckin stupid to have an opinion. But then you are not here to debate are you? You are here because you desperately need to try to impress internet strangers what a he-man you think you are. Anyone that knows you personally would and probably does bitch slap you every time you open your pie hole.

Your lame style obviously hides a scared little man that gave up his lunch money in school and would piss all over himself if he ever had to confront a grown man. You would be at the bottom of the food chain in my neighborhood sport. Try being more respectfull.

I don't give a rats ass if you are to weak too support the constitution .. you are the one that has to live with your pussy self....and you certainly don't have the nut sack to play "tough guy" anywhere but behind your keyboard.

I'm impressed.. Seattle huh...Come on down to Detroit, and I'll make you my bitch. Seattle?...

 

[Jroc]

The funny thing is that Israel, which has had far more experience with terrorism than we do, treats arrested terrorist suspects as a criminal matter.

And the really really funny thing is that no one had a problem with trying Richard Reid in a civilian court because george bush was president at the time.

Reid was taken into custody in this country, Not brought here from overseas so you're analogy does not hold up. I'm not going to bash Israel here so I'll pass on that comment.

 

[HUGGY]

.


Since when do we bring the enemy captured on the battlefield to the U.S. and give them Constitutional rights? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have been executed by now if not for you stupid libs. The Constitution does not apply to the enemy, you libs are such backwards idiots...Unreal!!

Justice for KSM!!

The constitution applies to human beings in our custody and jurisdiction you fuckin halfwit.

You have no more love of the constitution and the rule of law than most of the psycopathes in prison.

You know not whereof you speak.

Did we take Nazis to court to try their asses and threaten them with prison?

Nope.

We engaged them in battle.

And if we captured some of those fucks alive, we held them without trials in POW camps for an indefinite amount of time with not prospect of a trial or of habeas corpus or any of those other things associated with Constitutional rights.

Now, of course, al qaeda scumbags are different. They are not legal enemy combatants. They don't have uniforms, for example, and they have no concern for the laws and rules of war. So they aren't properly held as POWs. In fact, that status is a privilege to which they are not entitled. But, since we (unlike them) are civilized, we do treat them fairly well, in a manner akin to POWs. And certainly they deserve nothing better. So if a legitimate uniformed legal enemy combatant can be held without trial, then some al qaeda fuck can be so held, too.

And if there is any kind of prosecution to be had for their savage, barbaric war crime behavior, it should not give rise to greater rights than those enjoyed by captured, non-uniform wearing enemy saboteurs or spies. Summary execution would be appropriate. And Constitutional "rights" still are not applicable. Or, more accurately stated, they shouldn't be.

But given some recent arbitrary and aberrant Court rulings, there is no certainty anymore. Too bad.

Why the confusion counselor? WWII prisoners were held till the end of the war with THE COUNTRIES we were in conflict with. Some were charged with war crimes and treated as such. We are not at war with any country. We are conducting a police action and occupation theoretically to protect the people of these two countries from the conditions we created by invading them...We are using our armed forces because Bush was too stupid to work with the countries involved with Al Quida abusing thier hospitality and organizing terror plots against us.. The whole business should have been handled as a crime..just like Oklahoma. For a guy that theoretically went to college and studied law..you sure have an odd idea what is legal and what is not.

Your hack politics and fear seem to be what guides you. You are an odd case. Sometimes you discuss with clearity and good pupose..then your chicken shit side chimes in and your arguments are that of a an unavenged crime victim.

 

[jillian]

The funny thing is that Israel, which has had far more experience with terrorism than we do, treats arrested terrorist suspects as a criminal matter.

And the really really funny thing is that no one had a problem with trying Richard Reid in a civilian court because george bush was president at the time.

Reid was taken into custody in this country, Not brought here from overseas so you're analogy does not hold up. I'm not going to bash Israel here so I'll pass on that comment.

i think that's a false distinction and isn't accurate in every instance.

and at least some of the people the right has objected to trying in civilian courts have been arrested here...

i don't bash israel...

 

[Jroc]

The funny thing is that Israel, which has had far more experience with terrorism than we do, treats arrested terrorist suspects as a criminal matter.

And the really really funny thing is that no one had a problem with trying Richard Reid in a civilian court because george bush was president at the time.

Reid was taken into custody in this country, Not brought here from overseas so you're analogy does not hold up. I'm not going to bash Israel here so I'll pass on that comment.

i think that's a false distinction and isn't accurate in every instance.

and at least some of the people the right has objected to trying in civilian courts have been arrested here...

i don't bash israel...

I don’t have a problem with people taken into custody here in this country, But they should not bring people here from overseas. Military tribunals are the way to go with those people

 

[Liability]

The constitution applies to human beings in our custody and jurisdiction you fuckin halfwit.

You have no more love of the constitution and the rule of law than most of the psycopathes in prison.

You know not whereof you speak.

Did we take Nazis to court to try their asses and threaten them with prison?

Nope.

We engaged them in battle.

And if we captured some of those fucks alive, we held them without trials in POW camps for an indefinite amount of time with not prospect of a trial or of habeas corpus or any of those other things associated with Constitutional rights.

Now, of course, al qaeda scumbags are different. They are not legal enemy combatants. They don't have uniforms, for example, and they have no concern for the laws and rules of war. So they aren't properly held as POWs. In fact, that status is a privilege to which they are not entitled. But, since we (unlike them) are civilized, we do treat them fairly well, in a manner akin to POWs. And certainly they deserve nothing better. So if a legitimate uniformed legal enemy combatant can be held without trial, then some al qaeda fuck can be so held, too.

And if there is any kind of prosecution to be had for their savage, barbaric war crime behavior, it should not give rise to greater rights than those enjoyed by captured, non-uniform wearing enemy saboteurs or spies. Summary execution would be appropriate. And Constitutional "rights" still are not applicable. Or, more accurately stated, they shouldn't be.

But given some recent arbitrary and aberrant Court rulings, there is no certainty anymore. Too bad.

Why the confusion counselor? WWII prisoners were held till the end of the war with THE COUNTRIES we were in conflict with. Some were charged with war crimes and treated as such. We are not at war with any country. We are conducting a police action and occupation theoretically to protect the people of these two countries from the conditions we created by invading them...We are using our armed forces because Bush was too stupid to work with the countries involved with Al Quida abusing thier hospitality and organizing terror plots against us.. The whole business should have been handled as a crime..just like Oklahoma. For a guy that theoretically went to college and studied law..you sure have an odd idea what is legal and what is not.

Your hack politics and fear seem to be what guides you. You are an odd case. Sometimes you discuss with clearity and good pupose..then your chicken shit side chimes in and your arguments are that of a an unavenged crime victim.

The confusion is yours, Smugs. You cannot distinguish between clarity and the made up fantasy word "clearity."

You don't know the difference between purpose and the made up fantasy word "pupose."

Your faux analysis of my arguments is unpersuasive. For, whether you can see it or not or admit it or not, my arguments have been consistent.

we ARE at war, Smugs, and there is no requirement that it be with any one particular country or set of countries. And no, your claim is bogus. What we are engaged in is NOT a police action. It is war.

You seem to repeatedly forget it, but you are blessed to have me here to remind you, as I do now:

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

 

[HUGGY]

You know not whereof you speak.

Did we take Nazis to court to try their asses and threaten them with prison?

Nope.

We engaged them in battle.

And if we captured some of those fucks alive, we held them without trials in POW camps for an indefinite amount of time with not prospect of a trial or of habeas corpus or any of those other things associated with Constitutional rights.

Now, of course, al qaeda scumbags are different. They are not legal enemy combatants. They don't have uniforms, for example, and they have no concern for the laws and rules of war. So they aren't properly held as POWs. In fact, that status is a privilege to which they are not entitled. But, since we (unlike them) are civilized, we do treat them fairly well, in a manner akin to POWs. And certainly they deserve nothing better. So if a legitimate uniformed legal enemy combatant can be held without trial, then some al qaeda fuck can be so held, too.

And if there is any kind of prosecution to be had for their savage, barbaric war crime behavior, it should not give rise to greater rights than those enjoyed by captured, non-uniform wearing enemy saboteurs or spies. Summary execution would be appropriate. And Constitutional "rights" still are not applicable. Or, more accurately stated, they shouldn't be.

But given some recent arbitrary and aberrant Court rulings, there is no certainty anymore. Too bad.

Why the confusion counselor? WWII prisoners were held till the end of the war with THE COUNTRIES we were in conflict with. Some were charged with war crimes and treated as such. We are not at war with any country. We are conducting a police action and occupation theoretically to protect the people of these two countries from the conditions we created by invading them...We are using our armed forces because Bush was too stupid to work with the countries involved with Al Quida abusing thier hospitality and organizing terror plots against us.. The whole business should have been handled as a crime..just like Oklahoma. For a guy that theoretically went to college and studied law..you sure have an odd idea what is legal and what is not.

Your hack politics and fear seem to be what guides you. You are an odd case. Sometimes you discuss with clearity and good pupose..then your chicken shit side chimes in and your arguments are that of a an unavenged crime victim.

The confusion is yours, Smugs. You cannot distinguish between clarity and the made up fantasy word "clearity."

You don't know the difference between purpose and the made up fantasy word "pupose."

Your faux analysis of my arguments is unpersuasive. For, whether you can see it or not or admit it or not, my arguments have been consistent.

we ARE at war, Smugs, and there is no requirement that it be with any one particular country or set of countries. And no, your claim is bogus. What we are engaged in is NOT a police action. It is war.

You seem to repeatedly forget it, but you are blessed to have me here to remind you, as I do now:

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

Nice official looking smoke screen... Too bad it is not a congressional declaration of war.

Citing "The War Powers Act"....as a premise for this police action involving our military carries no significance because the WPA has been abused to the point that it could mean anything a president wants it to. All the WPA does is attempt to legally justify any military action the president chooses to engage in.

 

[Jroc]

WWII prisoners were held till the end of the war with THE COUNTRIES we were in conflict with. Some were charged with war crimes and treated as such.

Aug 8, 1942:
German saboteurs executed in Washington

In 1942, under Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's orders, the defense branch of the German Military Intelligence Corps initiated a program to infiltrate the United States and destroy industrial plants, bridges, railroads, waterworks, and Jewish-owned department stores. The Nazis hoped that sabotage teams would be able to slip into America at the rate of one or two every six weeks. The first two teams, made up of eight Germans who had all lived in the United States before the war, departed the German submarine base at Lorient, France, in late May.



Burger and the rest of the Long Island team were picked up by June 22, and by June 27 the whole of the Florida team was arrested. To preserve wartime secrecy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered a special military tribunal consisting of seven generals to try the saboteurs. At the end of July, Dasch was sentenced to 30 years in prison, Burger was sentenced to hard labor for life, and the other six Germans were sentenced to die. The six condemned saboteurs were executed by electric chair in Washington, D.C., on August 8. In 1944, two other German spies were caught after a landing in Maine. No other instances of German sabotage within wartime America has come to light.

German saboteurs executed in Washington — History.com This Day in History — 8/8/1942

 

[HUGGY]

You don't know me. Not a "lib" asshole.

I don't need your worthless permission for anything. You are too fuckin stupid to have an opinion. But then you are not here to debate are you? You are here because you desperately need to try to impress internet strangers what a he-man you think you are. Anyone that knows you personally would and probably does bitch slap you every time you open your pie hole.

Your lame style obviously hides a scared little man that gave up his lunch money in school and would piss all over himself if he ever had to confront a grown man. You would be at the bottom of the food chain in my neighborhood sport. Try being more respectfull.

I don't give a rats ass if you are to weak too support the constitution .. you are the one that has to live with your pussy self....and you certainly don't have the nut sack to play "tough guy" anywhere but behind your keyboard.

I'm impressed.. Seattle huh...Come on down to Detroit, and I'll make you my bitch. Seattle?...

Well you had better stay in Detroit Francis..don't come out West.... there is nothing about you or your run down town that would prepare you for for us. The only thing your big mouth and weak BS will buy you out here is stay much shorter than you anticipated.

 

[asterism]

The author of the stupid original post subscribes to the absurd notion that we "should" treat terrorism in the same way we treat mere criminality.

It was precisely that kind of mindless liberal "thinking" that led to the kinds of problems that made 9/11/2001 possible.

The funny thing is that the people who think that way voted for Obama based on his campaign rhetoric to the same. Sorta different now that he has to actually do the job now huh?

The funny thing is that Israel, which has had far more experience with terrorism than we do, treats arrested terrorist suspects as a criminal matter.

And the really really funny thing is that no one had a problem with trying Richard Reid in a civilian court because george bush was president at the time.

Israel most certainly does not treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem, the law enforcement option is just that - an option. Richard Reid was not high value enough to use for military operations so he was referred to the DOJ. KSH? Different story. Israel didn't go send their lawyers and police officers after the terrorists who carried out the Munich Massacre.

 

[HUGGY]

The funny thing is that the people who think that way voted for Obama based on his campaign rhetoric to the same. Sorta different now that he has to actually do the job now huh?

The funny thing is that Israel, which has had far more experience with terrorism than we do, treats arrested terrorist suspects as a criminal matter.

And the really really funny thing is that no one had a problem with trying Richard Reid in a civilian court because george bush was president at the time.

Israel most certainly does not treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem, the law enforcement option is just that - an option. Richard Reid was not high value enough to use for military operations so he was referred to the DOJ. KSH? Different story. Israel didn't go send their lawyers and police officers after the terrorists who carried out the Munich Massacre.

Bullshit!!!! They didn't invade Ausreia either like Bush would have done... They co-operated with the local authorities and sent a small SWAT team. They actually killed the terrorists also.... Unlike that stupid fuck Bush.

 

[Liability]

Fuck that bullshit deflection crap about Israel.

Let's get this bad boy back ON topic.

I believe we were talking about penumbras and umbras.

Why don't we hear more about this peculiar solar activity involving the U.S. Constitution, eclipses and shadows?

What does President Obama, as a former (and faux) Constitutional Law "professor," have to say about this important concept ?

And if he told us, would we be left unsatisfied?

 

[hortysir]

What does President Obama, as a former (and faux) Constitutional Law "professor," have to say about this important concept ?

And if he told us, would we be left unsatisfied?

Most likely!
He has already been on record as saying that he feels the Constitution spends too much time on what the Gubmint *can't* do and not enough on what it should do.
In other words,the Constitution is too restrictive.
To be a professor on the subject and being a 'fan' of it is two copletely different things.

 

[Trajan]

mostly unawares that such a trial was taking place in New York City!

So, we have a SAFE trial with a conviction....a hell of a lot more than Bush did for 8 years with all his Constitution/Bill of Rights bending actions. More to come, I'm sure.

hummmmm, I am not sure obama or his people saw this as a 'victory' as they described their pre-trial expectations.


whats up with KSM? should be a go then right?


bush? uhm, wait, he did trey Zacarias Moussaoui?yes?

 

[FA_Q2]

Now I know that emotions run high regarding all things related to Al Qaeda, but keep this in mind: This guy is going to do 20 YEARS before being considered for parole....how much you want to bet he's NOT going to get it?

That is actually the point. I should not have to BET on the security of this nation. Terrorists that are NOT us citizens or even IN this country are NOT afforded those rights that are in the constitution. They are WAR criminals and should be treated as such. This is particularly true with terrorists that seem to not care one iota about their own life other than ending it with grater American casualties. 20 years in prison will do nothing to temper the need for them to kill as many of us as possible. I find it rather disturbing that you are perfectly fine with placing these individuals back out there at all. If the sentence had been life I can understand but it is not. 20 to life is an entirely different sentence.

 

[BlindBoo]

The author of the stupid original post subscribes to the absurd notion that we "should" treat terrorism in the same way we treat mere criminality.

It was precisely that kind of mindless liberal "thinking" that led to the kinds of problems that made 9/11/2001 possible.

The funny thing is that the people who think that way voted for Obama based on his campaign rhetoric to the same. Sorta different now that he has to actually do the job now huh?

The funny thing is that Israel, which has had far more experience with terrorism than we do, treats arrested terrorist suspects as a criminal matter.

And the really really funny thing is that no one had a problem with trying Richard Reid in a civilian court because george bush was president at the time.

You'll never get anywhere with facts, Don't-cha-know......

 

[taichiliberal]

So, we have a SAFE trial with a conviction....a hell of a lot more than Bush did for 8 years with all his Constitution/Bill of Rights bending actions. More to come, I'm sure

.


Since when do we bring the enemy captured on the battlefield to the U.S. and give them Constitutional rights? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have been executed by now if not for you stupid libs. The Constitution does not apply to the enemy, you libs are such backwards idiots...Unreal!!

Justice for KSM!!

You can thank your god the Shrub for opening the door on this, genius. Look up Hamdan Vs. Rumsfeld...and get an adult to explain to you the history.

And for the record, Gitmo had Ghailani for YEARS on the taxpayers dollar. Neocon Parrots and pundits like you swore he couldn't be tried in a US court for all types of Chicken Little reasons. Well, THEY WERE WRONG....YOU WERE WRONG....and like all intellectual cowardly neocons, you'll change the subject at the drop of a hat rather than deal with the truth.

 

[taichiliberal]

This guy is the Attorney General...what a joke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp6a_nClgK4

Ghailani....tried in US court....found guilty and sentenced. Deal with it.

 

[taichiliberal]

Before returning fire, US Marines must read Insurgents their Miranda rights, it's right there in the Progressive Constitution

Ghailani tried in US court...found guilty...sentenced. Grow the fuck up, Frank....this is a win for the USA....deal with it.